Supreme Court May Have Final Word on Obama’s Gun Control

The situation changed as a result of District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 case that challenged the constitutionality of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which imposed the handgun restriction on D.C. residents. Scalia and the majority in this case held that individuals maintain a right to have a gun under the Second Amendment for purposes like self-protection even if such possession has nothing to do with belonging to a militia.

But the decision didn’t end there. Scalia opened the door to some forms of unspecified regulation, asserting that the Second Amendment did not grant an unlimited right to own a firearm.

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” Scalia wrote.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who dissented in the case, nonetheless said recently that the Heller decision failed to close the door on some forms of regulation.

“Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings, or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, are specifically identified as permissible regulations,” Stevens said.

Several gun-control cases have cropped up in the federal courts since Heller. Last October, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court dismissal of a suit brought by the National Rifle Association challenging a federal law prohibiting anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a handgun from a dealer. A unanimous panel found that “preventing handguns from easily falling into the hands of 18-to-20 year olds remains critical to public safety.”

107 Comments, 41 Threads

1.
blackelkspeaks

You might as well look into the entrails of an owl to try and predict what the Supreme Court will do on anything, anymore. Actually, you’ve got a better bet if you expect them to do whatever the Marxocrats want, nowadays. Robert’s court is in the bag for the Marxocrats.

Black Elk, What is there to prevent the Marxists from coercing a favorable response to their Agenda by a Supreme Court Justice? Not so much threat to the Justice themselves but by threat to Family or loved ones to force a ruling in their favor?
Have you ever suspected such with Roberts’ surprise Decision on Obamacare? Example: “Nice family (showing private pic) Want to keep em?”
Would not take a whole lot of convincing of which, the communists are capable of doing.

While I was initially disappointed in the verdict on Obamacare by Chief Justice Roberts’ declaration that Obamacare IS a tax means that it can be repealed by a simple majority in Congress. He also said, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” So, it is up to We, the people to get the vote out in 2014 to tip the majority in the Senate to the right and thereby repeal this oppressive, unAmerican tax. And to have a majority in the Senate so when impeachment occurs, the Senate will convict.

Because the ridiculous limitations of PJM’s comment section doesn’t allow me to edit my reply, I have to add, “To Roberts, the most pressing issue for the Court was not stopping Obamacare (which is ultimately the fault and responsibility of the American electorate), but protecting the American people from future socialist interpretations of the Commerce Clause, and protecting their states from overreaching federal government. By allowing some latitude for the Individual Mandate, he ironically proved President Obama to be either naive or deceitful.”

Sheer brilliance which will reverberate for decades, if not centuries. The One got his ass handed to him.

Chief Justice Roberts neutering of the Commerce Clause significantly diminishes the ability of the federal government to “do things FOR you”. This sets the Constitution back to its original intent of restraining the government by telling the elected what they CANNOT do.

On the other hand, he did kick the can down the road, hoping he could goad the American electorate into dumping the azz-clown in the WH and flipping the Senate. It still amounts to moral cowardice.

Or, maybe not.

The scenario of veiled threats, subtle intimidation by the Chicago Thug-in-Chief’s Gestapo has crossed my mind more than once, and I wouldn’t put it past him to arrange an accident for Roberts, Thomas, or one of the other conservative justices. He wants to be sure he has a lasting legacy – he has to pack the Court to ensure it.

” A unanimous panel found that “preventing handguns from easily falling into the hands of 18-to-20 year olds remains critical to public safety.”

Doesn’t that sound nice and considerate; as if 18-20yr olds are babies. Those same 18 – 20 yr olds are the ones that are old enough to fight and die to protect the 2nd amendment. What about the “sawed off shotgun” rhetoric? Scalia is off track with his BS about certain weapons being “dangerous” etc. “Shall NOT be infringed” is perfectly clear … leave it alone Scalia! The gun control agenda seeks to portray erroneously that EVERY single person – including children – have weapons caches and ammunition caches at the ready to on the rampage. There are millions of people that do not feel inclined to even own a gun; and gun ownership manages itself without the intrusion of the gods of the State in the federal government.

That particular demographic seems to have been instrumental in securing the election and reelection of President Obama. Clearly, there is something to be said for the logic that they are not fit to hand firearms…

Some in my neighborhood,those in our street economy I’m sure carry guns and occasionally i hear of one for sale.I caution my friends to leave it alone because although personal safety here is an issue,who knows where it’s been.Usually the grandest larceny around here is carried out by City Hall witch takes too much from the home owners and landlords,which i feel entitled to complain about now in this obama economy.

You should instead tell your friends to take ANY firearm to a gun dealer to do the legal transfer of owership sale.

For only about $20 you can have the gun dealer run the serial number on the weapon before you buy it plus the name of the seller & buyer has to go through the federal backround check before the transaction can be completed.

If anyone who is selling a weapon does NOT want to do the transfer legally then it is best to walk away.

Besides, obama is going to make private weapons sales ilegal through obummercare regulation soon, and that’s why they want your doctors to ask you about guns in your home while they perscribe those mind-bending anitdepressants to you, so you are set-up for future gun confiscation because you will be deemed “mentally unstable” if you have EVER taken their “safe” drugs or anyone else who lives in your home was on their “safe” drugs as well.

If you can’t check the history of a weapon you’re buying, that’s a shame, and we should make it possible.

Although it’s legal to buy guns secretly, we should be required to register them.

There needs to be a complete registry of guns.

There does not need to be a ban on “assault weapons” which are no more powerful than legal hunting rifles. There does not need to be a ban on large clips, as clips of ten are 100% effective for massacring entire hordes of unarmed noncombatants. Now, against armed men- soldiers or policemen? A large clip might make a difference. But two seconds to change clips is not going to give somebody like me time to take down a marauding gunman. So don’t make a law to give me that…

“If anyone who is selling a weapon does NOT want to do the transfer legally then it is best to walk away”

Depends on the gun.
Modern ( post ’68) handguns and long guns that were “papered” the day they were made, yes.

But I also collect “old stuff” like Civil War muskets and military rifles up to the WW2 era. Many HAVE NO SERIAL NUMBERS, and “aren’t firearms” according to the Fed (pre-1898) and/or pre-exist all the Governments Admin systems (Gun control act of 1968)

Some evil places (like New Jersey?) call everything from BB-guns to black powder (old or new!) “firearms” and require the Full-Monty of “registration” if you try to transfer one.

A real P.I.A. when “ neat old stuff” from the Pre-68 Gun Control Act days starts showing up as widows and grandkids are cleaning house, and collectors are interested

So, if you see/hear of that perfect pre-’64 Winchester, Garand, Luger, ’03 Springfield, Original Single Action Army, Sharps rifle or whatever else you “antique fetish” is….Buy it for cash, and everyone STFU.

If The Government HAS NO existing paper trail on an Old Gun….
Don’t START one, Capiche’?

The supreme court, being supreme, seem to be the only ones (along with other judges) to rule against simple statements, such as, “…shall not be infringed” because they know way much more than us common folk.

Assault is the threat of force, so I guess I could be arrested for threatening to use my “assault” pickle on someone, much les a firearm that is about 50 years old and holds more than 10 rounds.

I find it a little disturbing that no one links U.S. vs Miller to the proposed sporting rifle (“assault weapon”) ban. The Court’s decision rested exclusively on the “fact” that a shotgun with a 16 inch barrel had no “relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia“. Well, an AR-15 is in common use in militias and law enforcement, so the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the right to keep and bear it. The same can be said of a 30-round magazine.

Exactly jeff, even the author here does not draw the point that US vrs miller remanded the case back yo a lower court to fact find if sawed off shotguns were used in any military at the time. No one showed up to make the case.

Miller specifically allows the ownership of military small arms, that would be an M-16. Or any other small arm issued to any military in the world. Where Miller fails is that under Strict Scrutiny it is unreasonable for to disallow any lessor a weapon.

Heller expands that to include weapons not used in the military.

As for Scalia’s “scary weapons”. That is spurious as it refers to localitys in 1776 who outlawed “scary weapons” for validity. Just because the framers did not change every law in every municipality when the wrote the Constitution does not validate those laws. If it did we would still have slavery and prayer in schools.

Those of us old enough to remember the “handgun banners” of the ’70′s remember their schtick:

HANDGUNS are not typical a SOLDIERS weapon…we dont fight wars with them as primary arms…So banning JUST HANDGUNS creates no “Constitutional Issues”, because the “long guns” that a soldier would need are the ONLY thing “protected” by the Second Amendment.

Then the SAME folks do a 180, and say “military weapons” are NOT what the Second Amendment means.

I’m done trying to “reason” and “debate” and “prove” our case to them.

Regarding the U.S v Miller, where (quoting this article) Justice James C. McReynolds wrote, “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Miller was not represented when the case was heard. The Supreme Court never heard his side of the argument, either from an attorney representing him or by any other friend of the court. So, the evidence was “absent” in totality; the court heard none except from the government that had prosecuted Miller.

As Jeff & Fantom point out, Miller is a bad precedent for Liberals seeking to ban so-called ‘assault weapons’. The Miller court held that military-style weapons are exactly what the authors of the Second Amendment intended Americans to possess.

Another very important point, is the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Every gun law currently on the books – as well as every drug law – was enacted under Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Lopez case from the 1990′s limited Congress’s reach under the Commerce Clause. As tragic as Sandy Hook or Aurora are, I have a hard time understanding how they implicate Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the US Constitution.

Personally, I think a limit on magazine capacity might be upheld. I have a hard time fitting even that into Commerce Clause jurisprudence though.

US vs Miller was simply bad one sided case law as Miller, the defendant, failed to appear. There is considerable speculation as to whether he died or simply changed his name and hid from further prosecution. A key point in the case was that short barreled shotguns had no military purpose, an idea which a proper defense could have had laughed out of the court with testimony from WWI vets.
I do take exception to the title of this article. It will be the American people who have the final say in this whole debate, just as they did during Prohibition and do now in the war on drugs. People decide on what they want and others are more than happy to supply those needs. What may very well suffer along the way is legitimate legal sporting gun use as the ATF starts haunting gun ranges to see whether shooters have legal or formerly legal firearms.

I find it disturbing that anyone thinks that anything the law says about gun control is ok.

Shall not be infringed, people.

iow, any restriction on gun ownership is un-contitutional on it’s face, regardless of what the Supremes or Congress say -or ever had said- to the contrary. Licensing, registration, all of it. Un-constitutional and in total and complete opposition to the Founders intent.

Start with ‘shall not be infringerd’ or you’ve all but abandoned the argument before it even begins.

Every step you cede beyond that point is another step closer to gun confiscation and the gutting or ewlimination of The Second Amendment.

Take a stand somewhere, you pussies. But if you take a stand, stand on The Constitution. Stand on what the Founders intended.

The rule of law? w/o constitutional construction, interpreted under the Founders intent, there is no law.

They intended for you to be well armed, and if anyone said otherwise, you were meant to rise up and put the government back in it’s place with the use of those arms.

No, it did not reverse. How with in this website with this audience, can this error not yet be corrected!

The SCOTUS said the question should be re-adjudicated, and implied in the quoted dicta–“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”–that the question hinged on whether short-barreled shotguns were military equipment. Of course, they had been used in the WWI trenches not 20 years prior, and have advantages today in several situations.

It’s a very different thing than reversing. If it had been reversed, it would have been a disaster for the 2nd amendment having any meaning. While the dicta is quite re-assuring of the only honest interpretation of the 2nd, an originalist and insurrectionist one, I have little confidence such a faint-hearted originalist as Scalia will adhere to such.

Tom, given our past conversations, it is with a HUGE degree of mixed emotion and cognitive dissonance that I find you have the exact same opinion as I do on the Miller case.

But yes, the court did not actually hand down a ruling – they simply sent it back to the lower courts to clear up, and what they did say about it in doing so seemed to indicate that had someone simply shown up and proven that short-barreled shotguns had been in military/militia use then the law would have been summarily struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

Wonder if there is a way for this case to be revived and that specific question to be answered in the modern era?

After all, if it could somehow be limited to ONLY that specific question, and the direction has already been provided as to the constitutionality of the law by the SCOTUS of the 1930′s regarding if short barreled shotguns are proven to be in common military use, then the verdict should be a foregone conclusion and the relevant portion of the law struck down.

The opening sentence advertises the author has his facts twisted. After the decision on ObamaCare, and the other diktats Obummer has signed into law, what makes anyone think “The People” have the protection of the Supreme Court any more?

Where have you been the last 4 years, Mr. Straub?
Obama (in 2008 before he was elected) has declared the Constitution to be a “charter of negative liberties” he has to remedy, and is utilizing his AGENCIES OF CHANGE, the Supreme Court, Congress, and obsequious media, to knee cap the Peoples Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

“Shall not be infringed” means SCREW THEM & TAX THEM SOME MORE to the Bolshevik Party (Democrats).
Any questions?

Great. Let’s just turn anything and everything over to 9 folks, each of proven and known ideological bent.

Justice Roberts recently demonstrated the wisdom of that approach, making a unilateral determination that the illegal and unconstitutional purchase mandate of Obamacare was a “tax”.

Ruthie Ginsburg thinks much of the single document she’s mandated to uphold is antiquated nonsense and recommends looking to South Africa’s Constitution as a model rather than our own.

And so on.

Andrew McCarthy 10/8/11 quoting TJ on the judiciary:

The Obama years have pushed the accelerator on what had been a long, inching slide into the progressive abyss. For three-quarters of a century, statism was a Fabian project. It was reminiscent of what Jefferson, explaining his fear of the federal judiciary’s gradual imperialism, described as “working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all consolidated into one.” …

Jefferson was far from alone in concluding that “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” was “a very dangerous doctrine” that “would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Lincoln, too, perceived the peril to popular sovereignty: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court,” he pointed out, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Ah Jefferson! Would that be the same one who acknowledged that he needed the people’s permission to buy the Louisiana Purchase, but then just bought it when he thought France was getting cold feet? Thereby he almost doubled the size of the country, set up the potential disputes about whether the new territories would be free or slave, which eventually led to the Civil War, and made us such a huge country that eventually pretty much shattered his his vision of us staying a country of yeoman farmers. There is no question that he was a Founder and a great American, but he was a bundle of contradictions, as we all are. Is there some magic trick to keeping a government small as a country gets big, and the most powerful in the world, with (gulp) a huge standing army? If so, no one has found it yet.

Your point is to make a claim that since Thomas Jefferson did “x” on such and such, then his cautionary remarks about placing too much power in the hands of the SCOTUS aren’t valid ?

You do know, don’t you, D-White that this “ultimate arbiter on all questions” role was never the intent of the Supreme Court when established, that such powers of judicial review came about gradually, Marbury v. Madison being the turning point.

Apparently, I am intellectually qualified to identify the cherry-pocking of the Founders quotes when I see it. Or more to the point, here is one of the 25,000 things Jefferson said or wrote and here is one of the few thousand things he did. The main problem of the Tea Party and much of the right is that they use quotations in an extremely reductionist mode, ignoring the larger sphere of how the Founders acted before during and after the creation of the Sublime Documents. If Founders A, B, and C signed off on a document or commented to the effect that one cannot do X, Y, and Z and then proceeded to do or try to do x, y, or z, or later say that once could do x, y, or z, would not an honest student of history have to acknowledge such? Wouldn’t one think that a true strict constructionist would have to factor in all of the above?

Look, I happen to agree with Jefferson’s spouting off about how institutions accumulate power, but the sun also rises and sets.

The tea party quotes from the writing of the founding fathers, the constitution and the declaration of independence because these documents explain both the structure and utility of a small government of limited powers subordinated to the states and the people, and because such a form of government is what the tea party wishes to restore.
I am certain that opponents of a limited government would prefer to dwell upon the human failing of the founders, both real and concocted, or the imperfections of this milleniums first best attempt at constructing a free republic, than upon what was actually said. “Progressives” need never fear constrasting the words of their intellectual forbears, Rousseau, Robespiere, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussoline, Mao and Pol Pot, with these mens actions, since both are equally reprehensible. “Progressives”, having no fixed morality at all , justify any act, any crime , in the pursuit of power.

” The main problem of the Tea Party and much of the right is that they use quotations in an extremely reductionist mode, ignoring the larger sphere of how the Founders acted before during and after the creation of the Sublime Documents. ”

The main problem of the Left is in fact the Tea Party uses those quotes in context.

In THEIR OWN context, not the larger context of all of American History of which the Founders are a part. The problem for the Supreme Court and all of us is to sort through the Founders and the Founding documents and determine how they apply to a nation and a world that is significantly different from the one the Founders knew. What does freedom of speech mean in the world of the internet? What are reasonable limits to the commerce clause in a world of corporations, international airlines and interstate highways? Is a corporation a person? What is a militia in 2013 when we have the most powerful standing military the world has ever seen? And the trickiest one of all for the internet gun folks, what is “resisting tyranny” vs being “in rebellion?” The Constitution was created, largely in response to the inadequacy of the country in being able to respond to Shay’s Rebellion in which Western Mass. farmers, many of them Rev. War Vets were losing their land to Boston speculators. Those resisting tyranny, or in rebellion, depending on how you parse it, attacked the Springfield Armory, expecting to meet no resistance. Instead, they were fired upon and tracked down. The Rebellion failed, but the Federalists saw a weakness in how this would have been responded to on a national level and pushed for a larger Federal government, which would be governed by an accompanying Constitution, simultaneously enlarging and (supposedly) limiting the BIG government. The Anti-Federalists warned of all sorts of bad things that could happen under a tyrannical central government, but even they knew that we needed a stronger country. Some of the statements about limited government the Federalist Founders like Madison made were to assure/answer the skeptics, more than the fact that Madison actually believed them, sort of the way many of them also referred to God.
From that point on we had “progress,” which consisted of the country expanding in population, territory, and power. Slavery rose and fell, women got the vote, Amendments to the Constitution came and one went, Federal income tax, social security, medicare, and now Obamacare. A vision has come to many for whom the current world is too loud, complicated, and corrupt (isn’t it always?) that if we returned to how we did things in 1790, we would be a lot better off. Never mind the fact that they were making things up as they went along. No, that was the Golden Age. Sure it was. The Founders are fascinating people and deserve to be studied, not have a few of their statement presented to us in Reader’s Digest form as if they were given to Moses on Sinai.

“The Constitution was created, largely in response to the inadequacy of the country in being able to respond to Shay’s Rebellion in which Western Mass. farmers, many of them Rev. War Vets were losing their land to Boston speculators. Those resisting tyranny, or in rebellion, depending on how you parse it, attacked the Springfield Armory, expecting to meet no resistance. Instead, they were fired upon and tracked down …”

There’s far more to it than that; the Articles were a source of dissatisfaction to almost all classes. The weakness of the government had placed severe strictures on credit and most merchants in the States and abroad were demanding payments in specie, something the former colonies were constantly short of until the gold discoveries in California in the 1840s. At most Shay’s Rebellion added impetus to the desire to create a stronger federal government, to manage both the Confederation and the States’ debt, and to create a sound and universal currency.

And the currency was actually a large part of Shay’s Rebellion in that the western farmers had sold off their IOU’s for pennies on the dollar, and they were then going to be redeemed at a higher rate for the speculators and the farmer’s debts on their farms were being called in, similar to what happened later when Madison and Hamilton later were duking it out over similar issues, which ended up with the Grand Assumption, a major first step in walking down the federal taxing road, which the Ratification of the Constitution made possible. The gun issue is a lot simpler than the money issues, that’s why they are appealing to rave about.

One key to this mess, is found in Article 1 Section 8 … “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Since these are the missions of the militia, the Supremes in Miller rightly asked a question of fact regarding the weapon in question. Sounds like the answer was sandbagged by design, but the question is still good. The government is prohibited from infringing the right to keep man portable (bearable) arms suitable for the missions of the militia. If our employees use them (oh like police use saps (illegal for private citizens here in the PRK), switchblades (ditto) or batons (ditto), then there is no rational way a court can uphold an enactment which places the citizens on a different plane than that of their employees. Knowing my history, I am quite aware of how the courts flub basic logic and history. Further, we find the following in Article I, Section 9, “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States” – English law certainly recognized rights to different classes of weapons based on their subjects status as noble or not. Notwithstanding the tireless efforts of our current regime, we do not divide our citizens into the three estates in the US. This also adds weight to the notion that what is in common use by our employees (police, FBI, and yes military) are what is protected for us mere taxpaying serfs. The plain logic follows that a select fire M16 is suitable for militia use, and therefore, protected by the 2nd Amendment for citizen ownership. This of course is not the case in the US today thanks to the Hughes Amendment (an unconstitutional enactment if I ever saw one). And yes some full auto weapons are in private hands. Good luck buying one.

The Supreme Court has already became part of the problem. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are absolute and have always been. If you don’t like an Amendment there are provisions to change it, you just don’t change it by ignoring the fact that it exist or make another law. Of course we do not have a constitutional government today, what we have is a majority tyranny. Enacting laws by majority vote that are unconstitutional has become an everyday event in this government. Then we have Obamo legislating from the White House, which is a total disregard of the Constitution. Therefore, the chances are that the Supreme Court will ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench. It seems that nobody in this government can read and understand Article I Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. Today we have all three branches of government enacting laws that are unconstitutional upon the American people.

Given that the great divider may have the chance to put a 5th and “all telling” liberal ringer on the Supreme Court, just like the “election” in 2012, do not count your chickens before they hatch. Actually, given the “back stab” on obamacare, to me, it’s not a given that the Supreme Court would vote in favor of the second amendment now anyway.

I was under the impression, though, to change an Amendment of the Constitution, a Constitutional Convention had to be convened and the states had to ratify the changes by a 3/4 majority vote. In that instance, all the great dividers “supremes court” would have to do is change the meanings of a couple words or maybe just add some punctuation in the most advantageous place. They could always ask joe biteme what the original founding fathers wanted because he was probably there to listen to the debates on what the Constitution should contain. That could be where he got the line, “they’re going to put y’all back in chains”.

This is a question on a different tangent, but I am curious. What is the opinion of this readership on the question of a defensive weapon against drones?
Drones seem to be the “weapon of choice” of the current administration and because of that and, I believe, the fact that the use of drones over American soil has been approved..how would a “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” defend against drone strikes?
Would weapons capable of shooting down a drone qualify as something protected under the 2nd Amendment should our government start to use drones against American citizens?
Should we be concerned about the use of drones? It wouldn’t matter how many pistols, rifles and “assault” rifles citizens have if drones can be used against us.

Ya gotta do some research on what the Founders had to say about militias.

Local militias, in times past, had artillery. That was the big dog in warfare, back then. They had every weapon of war available to them that the locals could afford. otoh, everyone of military age was a member of the milita, from 16 y/o to 60 y/o. (Certain types of individuals were exempt, being necessary to keeping the local economy and what not on track.) As a militia member you had to show for musters and do a bit of training on a regular basis. Unless you wre poverty-stricken, you also bought your own gear, including weapons and the materials neede to maintain those weapons. Most of that personal military gear and weapons were kept in your own home. There would also have been a local armory, quite separate from the armories of government forces and would now be maintained separately from materials stored by what is now called The National Guard. otoh, the standing military was small, and meant to remain that way. A tiny fraction of what we maintain, today.

That’s off the top of my head. There are more details to look into and sort out for the modern local militia.

So, the short answer is, yes. From a Founders’constructionist pov, locally armed militias (the people) could have anti-aircraft missiles.

Only WMD’s–possibly not including small chemical warheads of non-persistent agents–are not protected to private ownership by the 2nd amendment, and that because they are strictly speaking not legal for use by governments in war, but are of retaliatory use only. This is because their use cannot be made to solely attack legal targets in compliance with the rules of war.

Everything else is fair game, in a truly legal regime per the 2nd amendment.

This also includes the really scary stuff like secure communications and intelligence gathering equipment, and coming soon if not quite there, military robots.

Oh, it matters….
Those people operating drones have families, and have to eat, sleep, piss and crap. That’s when the drone becomes vulnerable….when the operator becomes vulnerable. We did learn how to fight an insurgent war.
The most effective weapon on the battlefield is the scout sniper….and the coming conflict ain’t gonna be a game of patta-cake.
For an insurgent force to defeat a superior enemy, you must deprive him of food, clothing, shelter, and comfort and convince his supporters that he is the bully infringing the rights of the little guy.
The D idiots are delusional re “gun control”.
Even if 80% of gun owners were convinced to disarm, that leaves 16 million owners who are now criminals for not complying.
Of that 16 million criminals, 20% probably have the stones to react. That’s 3.2 million armed insurrectionists, scattered across the country, who will most assuradly fight the collective for their Devine Rights.
Once they make you a criminal, you may as well go full auto for the fight.
Best of luck with that “We Won” thing.
Wolverines!
III/0317
One more thing…Does anyone else think that the Vice President should have his gun ownership priviledges questioned by mental professionals? His publicly spoken words do indicate some mental infirmity

I agree wholeheartedly. We will, God forbid, be in a fight to the death to preserve the rule of law and our representative republic. I’ll be there with you. And we won’t be fighting ala the Geneva Conventions. They don’t apply to civil wars. That’s why the DHS has ordered over 1.2 BILLION .40 cal HOLLOW POINT rounds. That works out to about 4 rounds per man, woman AND child here in America.

Considering that black people commit higher instances of gun violence and death given small their percentage of the population, under Scalia’s guidelines, blacks should not be allowed to have firearms.

Expanding on your comment Willie. All of the protagonists both pro and anti in the ‘Gun Debate’ continue to avoid the ‘Elephant in the room’ in the name of reverse Racism and Political Correctness.

That is of course the murder and violence statistics which show quite clearly that a small demographic, less than 2% of the population of the USA , are responsible for OVER 50% of all the murders and OVER 60% of all the violent crime in the USA.
I am speaking of course of BLACK male youths between the ages of 15 and 25 (think Trayvon Martin).

Control these BLACK youths and the dissolute antisocial, criminal BLACK culture that they spring from and the USA could , at a stroke, HALVE the Murder and Violence in the country. Which should be far easier to accomplish than trying to control the whole population and the 300 Million or so of guns which are already in circulation.Which of course being too broad a brush is a hit and miss proposal. BLACK youths especially the more dangerous kind are far more easily identified.

The totally ignored Afro/American BLACK culture of indiscriminate violence makes the USA a dangerous country to visit and the naive, gullible, foolish Political Correctness with which it is handled just exacerbates that.

The language of the Second Amendment specifies “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As the language indicates, the militias in question are state militias, and the security they secured at the time of the ratification was security from slave rebellions—for obvious reasons, slave patrols were a basic and necessary feature of Southern life. It was a serious concern of the Southerners that the Federal government might someday act to disarm the militias in order to end slavery. The preservation of slavery certainly wasn’t the only justification for the 2nd Amendment, but it apparently was an important one. The body of the Constitution already presumed the existence of state militias and included a provision for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” them. Nobody was suggesting that the militias be abolished or disarmed. The Second Amendment, like the three fifths rule and the time limit on ending the slave trade, was a sop to the fears of the slave owners. The right to bear arms was indeed intended to preserve liberty; but liberty, as it has so often been in human history, was understood as the freedom to dominate others. Maybe a lawyer should suggest to the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment was modified, if not repealed, by the 13th.

“and the security they secured at the time of the ratification was security from slave rebellions—for obvious reasons, slave patrols were a basic and necessary feature of Southern life.”

Did you just make that up, hear it from Danny Glover, or were you told that by some lefty professor? There is no doubt that the slaveholding states would have called out their militias for a widespread slave rebellion, but “slave patrols” to the extent they existed were the province of sheriffs and deputized citizens. Even during the Civil War, “slave patrols” to the extent they existed were the province of sheriffs and Home Guard units composed of men too old, too young, too unfit, or too well-connected to be in the Provisional Army of the Confederate States, itself largely raised by calling out the actual militias of the confederated states. The Mexican War was fought with many called up militia troops, mostly Southern, a point of some contention as the US tried to sort out dealling with the Mexican Cession. You’d have thought that The South would have been so concerned about a slave rebellion that it would have kept its militias created to suppress slave rebellions at home rather than sending them to the halls of Montezuma. By the way, calling up the militias is the way the Union army was raised and The War started; Lincoln asked the governors of the states remaining in the union to call out their militias to give him the 75,000 men he wanted to “suppress the rebellion” in the seceding states. The Upper South states refused to call up their militias to invade The South and seceded. At the time the entire standing federal Army had 15,000 men. Most, maybe all, Northern, non-slaveholding states maintained and equipped militias at the time of the Civil War. Do you actually believe that Noo Yawk or Pennsylvania maintained their militias to deal with a slave rebellion or did you just accept whatever crap you were told?

At the time of the Framing, the border between Georgia and Spanish Florida was unsettled and both Spanish forces and the Seminoles and other Indians were active and agressive on the frontier, a frontier that extended all the way to French Louisiana. The Western frontier through the Upper South and middle states was essentially the Appalachians or the Ohio River. While the French were ostensible allies after Independence, their Indian former allies certainly weren’t and the western frontiers of all the states were subject to threat for which they maintained militias.

If you’re going to come here spouting lefty crap, you’d best come better prepared, but at least you don’t use your name and thus you avoid personal embarrassment. Typical ignorant, cowardly lefty.

LOL! I don’t know Tom! Maybe you can take a look at all the statutory laws pertaining the “States malitia’s” and find the answer yourself. Then research all the laws pertaining to a ‘National malitia’ and let me know what you find.

Why do you think that USC Title 18, Section 115 has long been found constitutional? Why do you think that thing of governments checks and balances known as the Seperation of Powers was designed into the formation of the government? Why do you think the constitution gave to the people the power to vote their government officials? Why do you think the constitution gave to the congress, elected by the people, the powers of impeachment? Do you really think the founders intended for an ‘unorganized and armed national malitia’ of private citizens to define and control the operations of government? Have you read the U.S. Patriot Act expanding to domestic terrorism?

The point being, that all this radical extremist talk and threat of armed action by some perceived grant of a national mailita of private citizens against the Obama, his administration and the government in general as some defined tyrannical government, is completely misplaced and dangerous ignorance and idiocy.

“The MicroGravity Foundry is the first 3D printer that creates high-density high-strength metal components even in zero gravity,” said Stephen Covey, a co-Founder of DSI and inventor of the process. “Other metal 3D printers sinter powdered metal, which requires a gravity field and leaves a porous structure, or they use low-melting point metals with less strength.”

Mars missions also would be safer with a MicroGravity Foundry on board to print replacements for broken parts, or to create brand new parts invented after the expedition was on its way to the Red Planet.

The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms…

Not so. The Second Amendment prohibits Congress from infringing the inherent or God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms. That right predates the founding of the United States. The Second Amendment grants or confers or gives nothing to anyone.

Well, part of the issue will be in the phrase ‘… commonly available and in common use…’, words the courts have used but haven’t firmly defined in terms of in common use by whom and for what. True assault rifles (capable of select fire from semi to full or burst fire) can no longer be produced and sold to civilians. So, they are not commonly held by the public or in common use- because it was made illegal. However, the Heller and McDonald cases referred to the 2A intent being the public being armed to oppose government tyranny. So, assault rifles are certainly the most commonly available and commonly used weapons by infantry around the world. Hence this interesting bit that came up during the SCOTUS orals in Heller, I’m prefacing it with the lower courts ruling which was upheld and a key paragraph referred to during the oral arguments to put the orals in context:

“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

Pg 53
The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).

SCOTUS orals discussion
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre – pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is -it is nowadays commonly held.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well -
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.

GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”

The D idiots are delusional re “gun control”.
Even if 80% of gun owners were convinced to disarm, that leaves 16 million owners who are now criminals for not complying.
Of that 16 million criminals, 20% probably have the stones to react. That’s 3.2 million armed insurrectionists, scattered across the country, who will most assuradly fight the collective for their Devine Rights.
Once they make you a criminal, you may as well go full auto for the fight.
Best of luck with that “We Won” thing.
Wolverines!
III/0317
One more thing…Does anyone else think that the Vice President should have his gun ownership priviledges questioned by mental professionals? His publicly spoken words do indicate some mental infirmity

An interesting and honest look at Crime Stats in the United States using data from the FBI that doesn’t seem to be getting much discussion from either the press or politicians. There has been a 50% reduction in the violent crime rate in the last twenty years and neither political party is taking credit for this? I thought politicians always wanted to take credit for good things? Perhaps they don’t want to draw attention to the fact that higher crime rates seem to correspond with inner cities? The great thing about living in the United States is you’re Free To Choose, at least for now, so feel free to Choose Your Own Crime Stats if you don’t like these.

The redundancy of gun anti gun control activists points is overwhelming and irrelevant, but they continue. Regulating gun control has been around for a very long time and I challenge any anti gun control activist to publish the numbers of times they filed a brief in any federal court and or won such a case.

Now, watch them slam the same old and newer citations in their responses! Was regulating ex-felons objected too? Was regulating adjudicated mental exceptions objected too? Was strict licensing and uses of certain former military or any ‘fully automatic’ weapons objected too? Is regulating of current military weapons objected too? Has certain States and municipalities regulating weapons been adjudicated ‘across the board’ as unconstitutional? Has gun free zones been adjudicated as unconstitutional? Has background checks been adjudicated unconstitutional? Has regulating what malitia’s are and defining them been adjudicated as unconstitutional? Has regulating licensed gun dealers and what they can sell been adjudicated as unconstitutional? Has different States laws regulating guns crosssing into their States been adjudicated as unconstitutional? Has regulated gun manufacturing been adjudicated unconstitutional? Has USC Title 18, Section 115 been adjudicated as unconstitutiuonal? Plus a long list of other reglulations.

Plain and simple, the federal government has the constitutional right to regulate guns as does the States and muncipalities of States so long as they do not conflict with federal constitutional law. Thats the reality inspite of all the cherry picking and self serving defining of the constitution by the gun advocates propaganda!

Another common citiation used by the gun advocates is that of inalienable rights. But like everything else they have their own cherry picked self serving special interests of how inalienable rights are defined. The best ‘lay’ definition of inalienable rights is; “Duties which are owed exclusively to God cannot be enforced, regulated or impeded by civil government.” That pretty much rules out the constitution and the federal, States and Municipal governments, IF one lives his/her life in accord to a God and that Gods teachings. In other words, you’re only subservant too the God you follow and to NO government(s).

This of course, points to the ‘hypocrisy’ of language and conflict of intent by the founders of the constitution, used in forming a government of the United States. On the one hand they suggest inalienable rights of God and natural law and on the other hand, they deny inalienable rights and natural law. They left these conflicts they created, too the Congress to enacts government laws of the land, the Supreme Court to settle constitutional issues of enacted law and the people elect representatives as their voice in congress and the presidency.

So again, its been found constitutional for the government to ‘regulate’ gun without ‘infringing on the basic right aqnd precept of the Second Amendment. Thats the reality! A nation of people subservant only to their God or anarchism or a recognized government with regulatory powers?

“So again, its been found constitutional for the government to ‘regulate’ gun without ‘infringing on the basic right aqnd precept of the Second Amendment. ”

Heller only potentially conflicts with Miller, Zeke. It is the uncontroverted opinion of the SCOTUS that the 2nd protects the ownership of all items of military utility, and of such under private ownership.

We’ll see! Its a work in slow motion progress that will continue so long as guns are at the core of inflaming the conscience of a majority. My points were very simple ones of reality in this point in time and at the same time relating that there will never be an arms ownership ban.

Have to see what all the special interest lawyers will bring before the court and go from there. As any good lawyer knows, the language in most of the Bill of Rights was poorly conceived and vague to interpretation and intent.

“The MicroGravity Foundry is the first 3D printer that creates high-density high-strength metal components even in zero gravity,” said Stephen Covey, a co-Founder of DSI and inventor of the process. “Other metal 3D printers sinter powdered metal, which requires a gravity field and leaves a porous structure, or they use low-melting point metals with less strength.”

Mars missions also would be safer with a MicroGravity Foundry on board to print replacements for broken parts, or to create brand new parts invented after the expedition was on its way to the Red Planet.

There will be a time when your movement’s political influence will be no more than the neo-nazi’s and the ancient roman emperors. The Internet is eating away at the MSM and the censors. And the new small fabrication technologies will do the same to the gun grabbers and their dying bureaucracy.

A Supreme Court that has ruled slaves are property, that unions can FORCE, COERCE, individuals to join a union to obtain a job and that you can be COERCED, FORCED, undner penalty of law to “buy” something you wish NOT to buy under Obamacare – just to cite three items that are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL – shows that the Supreme Court can rule any way they damn well please, IRRESPECTIVE of what the Constitution stipulates.

Do NOT be surprised if the Court severely restricts gun ownership or requires that ALL gun owners register with the Federal Govt.

Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world,because the people are armed,basic military is mandatory for men,and after wards they are required to keep their weapon at home.A crook will think twice about breaking into houses knowing this,people who think the world should get rid rid of guns should think again.

I think it is telling as to the legitimacy of the three branches of government that it seems to be a consensus here among many that none of them obey, or consider themselves to have an obligation to follow, the Constitution. If that is the feeling in the country, then obedience to the government becomes ….. optional in the absence of coercive force.

Interesting article in Sunday’s Washington Post (1/20) about how in Germany, everyone is just fine with a new universal gun data base. Yes, I know, Germany. Page A-16 print edition. I thought maybe it was a parody but no.

All of the participants, both pro and anti, in the ‘Gun Debate’ continue to avoid the like the plague the ‘Elephant in the room’ in the name of Political Correctness including those people posting on here.

That is of course that the murder and violence statistics which show quite clearly that a, small demographic less than 2% of the population of the USA , are responsible for OVER 50% of all the murders and OVER 60% of all the violent crime in the USA.

I am speaking of course of BLACK male youths between the ages of 15 and 25 (think Trayvon Martin). Control these BLACK youths and the dissolute corrupting BLACK culture that they spring from and the USA could , at a stroke, HALVE the Murder and Violence in the country by putting this small demographic under tight control. BLACK cultural violence make the USA a dangerous country to visit.

All of the proponents both pro and anti in the ‘Gun Debate’ continue to avoid the ‘Elephant in the room’ in the name of Political Correctness .
That is of course the murder and violence statistics which show quite clearly than a, small demographic less than 2% of the population of the USA , are responsible for OVER 50% of all the murders and OVER 60% of all the violent crime in the USA.
I am speaking of course of BLACK male youths between the ages of 15 and 25 (think Trayvon Martin). Control these BLACK youths and the dissolute BLACK culture that they spring from and the USA could , at a stroke, HALVE the Murder and Violence in the country. BLACK cultural violence make the USA a dangerous country to visit.

If you read the Miller decision, it doesn’t even actually uphold the bans on machine guns and short-barreled shotguns, as both are certainly in common military use.

The Obamanoids have not yet cued into the fact that they CANNOT enact an enforceable ban on any firearm or magazine. Not “will not” or “isn’t politically feasible” , but CANNOT. It is already possible to use a $1000 3D printer to print both 30-round magazines and AK-style receivers. The programs are out there, and the printers are already in use and no prohibitively expensive. 10 years from now, they will be far better than their already excellent quality, and they will be in everyone’s home. This is going to have VERY interesting effects on our current economic structure, but it also renders prohibitions of anything made of metal or plastic simply _impossible_. When it comes to technology, information wants to be free, and you cannot refill and shut Pandora’s box once it’s been opened.

“If you read the Miller decision, it doesn’t even actually uphold the bans on machine guns and short-barreled shotguns, as both are certainly in common military use.”

And none ONE pro gun bangers lawyers attempted to file in any court claiming the Clinton era ban was unconstitutional! According to the NRA they didn’t like the looks of the Supreme Court should a filing be made that would end up there. Seems if their position was so constitutionally iron-clad they would have no problems with any makeup of the supreme court.

Obama could appoint as many as 3 new justices during his 2d term. They will be like Holder if not worse. Pray that all of the conservatives and Kennedy live beyond 2016. if they do not survive Obama, kiss your ass goodbye.

Let’s try this again.
How long will it take for such a case to reach the Supreme Court, and who will be on the Court at the time it’s heard? Relying upon the gang of nine is more foolish than trying to double your paycheck at a casino.

We have no reason to trust the U.S. Supreme Court with a "decision" regarding the Second Amendment and Obama's "gun control". Five justices have already struck down the Fourth Amendment and will most probably use the same reasoning to strike down the Second Amendment. It is amazing that a few justices can move against the U.S. Constitution.

2 years ago

Report Abuse

2 years agoEditLink To Comment• Report Abuse

This comment has been reported.
Click here
to view it anyway.

View All

... (show more)

Update CommentCancel

3 Trackbacks to “Supreme Court May Have Final Word on Obama’s Gun Control”